Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Kerala Water Authority in CC.No.45/11 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to supply drinking water at least for one hour for every day and also to pay Rs.500/- with interest at 12% from the date of default. The case of the complainant is that with respect to the non supply of drinking water. It is alleged that after 15.2.2011 the opposite parties are not supply drinking water and the complainant intimated the fact several times. The opposite parties have asserted that the authority has been provided and is ready to supply water. It is pointed out that the complainants residence is situated at the end of the pipe line. It is admitted that there are damages caused to the pipe line which has been installed about 35 years of back. It is also mentioned in the order that the opposite parties were absent at the time of hearing. We find that the Forum has only directed to provide water and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. The facts of the case are that the Decree Holder/Complainant filed an execution application against the Judgment Debtor Delhi Development Authority, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 30.7.2009. The Decree Holder applied for its restoration along with which he also filed an application for condonation of delay. In delay condonation application, he made prayer for restoration of execution petition, apparently inadvertent mistake on the part of the decree holder. The District Forum vide order dated 26.8.2010, rejected the application for condonation of delay, in consequence whereof also restoration application, saying that in delay application, prayer is made as appeal for restoration of the case, and there is no appeal, the appeal of the condonation of delay is rejected. 2. The Decree Holder thereafter filed a fresh execution, which the District Forum dismissed vide order dated 11.5.2011. The order may be reiterated as below for easy understa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
COMMON JUDGMENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal.134/04 is the 1st opposite party hospital and the appellant in A.177/04 is the 2nd opposite party doctor in OP.43/02 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.4.lakhs as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he experienced defective vision to his left eye and consulted the 2nd opposite party doctor on 22.5.2001. He was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital on 28.5.2001 and on the same day itself cataract surgery to the left eye was done and discharged on the same day in the evening with bandage and advised to report on the next day for removal of the bandage. On the next day morning itself the complainant felt irritation and uneasiness on the left eye. The complainant reported the matter to the 2nd opposite party at his residence and was advised to come to the hospital on the next day morning and also advised rigorou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHANAN : MEMBER The complainant is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint No. 440/06 by the CDRF, Kozhikode vide order dated 23.9.2010. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is the owner of land over which a 11 KV line of the opposite parties was crossing and since he wanted to construct a house in the said property, he approached the opposite party for shifting the line and as requested by the second opposite party, an amount of Rs. 21,130/- was remitted on 3.12.98 and though he had repeatedly requested the opposite parties to shift the line enabling him to construct a house, the opposite parties delayed the matter and it was only after filing the complaint before the Forum that the opposite parties shifted the line and that too at the request of some others. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed for refund of the amount of Rs. 21,130/- and compensation of Rs. I,00,000/- with cost of Rs. 5,000/- Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties, postal department, against the order of the District Forum directing them to pay Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 15-10-2007 till realization. The case of the complainants in brief is that the first complainant is the wife and complainant No.2 is the mother of late Narasimha Rao. He worked as U.D.C. and during his life time, he took insurance policy for Rs.1,50,000/-. While so, he died on 03-1-2007. When they approached for settlement of the claim, it was repudiated on the ground that assured applied for medical leave in the year 2003. The said fact was not disclosed in the proposal form. In fact he was hale and healthy. He did not violate any of the rules nor there was suppression of disease. Assailing the repudiation, she filed the complaint claiming Rs.1,50,000/- under the policy together with interest, compensation of Rs.2,00,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was working as Conductor in APSRTC in Kakinada Depot. When he was suffering from ailment of right eye, the Management directed the complainant to take treatment. He took treatment in several places as well as in Akira Eye Hospital, which is a Super Specialty Hospital for Laser Treatment and Cataract and Vitreo Retinal Micro Surgeries and was advised to undergo surgery to his right eye. He therefore made a request to the management and they directed the complainant to take treatment and referred him to opposite party hospital for treatment. Accordingly he approached the opposite party hospital and was admitted as in patient on 22-7-2005 and was operated on 08-8-2005 and was discharged on 12-8-2005. Subsequent to the operation, he lost his sight completely which was due to the negligent operation conducted on his right eye. Then he got i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The complainant in O.P. 338/03 before CDRF, Ernakulam is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below as per the order dated 25-5-2004. 2. The case of the appellant/complainant was that she had booked an Air Ticket from Mumbai to Kochi for her journey on 1-5-04 at 2.45 hours and when she went to the Mumbai International AirPort for her journey, the officials of the checking counter asked her to have the excess baggage paid separately and that after remitting the baggage charges, when she came to the counter for her journey, the officials did not permit her to travel. alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 18% interest for the deficiency in service, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and hardships, Rs. 50,000/- towards expenses for return journey and Rs. 5,000/- as cost. 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version wherein they submit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The respondent issued insurance policy bearing No.69843805 on 30.1.2002. The respondents addressed letter dated 10.10.2003 informing the appellant that the insurance policy was suspended w.e.f., 10.10.2003. In this regard the appellant addressed letters dated 4.11.2003 and 9.12.2003 to the respondents. The respondents returned the cheque for `11,500/- sent by the appellant on the premise of the lapse of the insurance policy. The appellant had approached the Insurance Ombudsman for ventilating his grievance. The insurance Ombudsman advised the appellant to approach the Central office of the respondent insurance corporation on the premise of lack of his jurisdiction. 2. The respondents had cited the reason for suspension of the insurance policy as the suppression of material fact by the appellant. It is contended that the investigation made by the second respondent in regard to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 3rd opposite party in OP.287/99 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant and other opposite parties are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- with interest at 12% from 10.2.98 and also to pay a sum of Rs.250/- as costs. 2. The matter is with respect to the home appliances benefit scheme conducted by 1st opposite party firm. The person mentioned as Managing partner is the brother of the appellant. It is the contention of the appellant that he was not a partner in the above firm. According to him he was an employee of Federal bank and his wife is an employee of the KSEB. We find that the complainant has not produced any document to show that the opposite party is a partner. It is the case of the opposite party/appellant that the 1st opposite party was proprietory concern run by his brother who is absconding. In the absence of evidence as to establish that the appellant was a partner of the firm we find that he cannot be m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Smt. M. Shreesha,Member: Aggrieved by the order C.C.No.139/09 on the file of Dist.Forum-III, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the case are that one K.Venkata Subbaraya Sarma purchased flat no.206 in Riviera Apartments by way of registered Sale Deed from opposite party no.1 on 7.9.1992 for a sale consideration of Rs.6,80,000/- and thereafter the said K.Venkata Subbaraya Sarma executed a Gift Deed in respect of flat no.206 admeasuring 1820 sq.ft. including common area and Car Parking together with undivided share of 50 sq.yards. in favour of the complainant by means of gift settlement deed on 19.9.2007. It is the complainants case that Car Parking P-16 was earmarked by opposite party no.1 on 11.11.03. Thereafter opposite party no.2 occupied the said car parking slot and the complainant sent a letter to opposite party no.3 on 14.1.08 and requested them to go through the documents earmarking P-16 as car parking to her. Opposite party no.2 repl...
Tag this Judgment!